Liberty is only a fading memory in a country run by kooks so authoritarian that an elderly man can be arrested for defending himself from a wild beast on his own property. From Taxachusetts:

A 76-year-old Auburn man is facing charges after killing a bear in his backyard.

Richard Ahlstrand told WBZ-TV he was stocking his bird feeder Friday night when a bear about seven feet tall and 300-to-400 pounds started chasing him.

That’s when he turned his shotgun on the bear.

“I didn’t have time to aim through the sights, but I aimed in the direction of the head on this thing and I pulled the trigger before it got to me. It just dropped,” he said.

Ahlstrand said he was carrying the shotgun Friday night because he thought he saw the bear in his yard Thursday.

“If that ever jumped on me, I wouldn’t even be here right know, I don’t think. I know it was going to seriously maul me,” he said.

Ahlstrand faces a long list of charges, prominently including the charge of killing the bear before it could kill him. Authorities claim the bear had cubs, which means the judge will not go easy on this cold-hearted creator of cuddly orphans.

“They got me set up now like I’m some kind of murderer. And then the environmental guy told me ‘You should have called me instead of shooting it.’ What was I going to do, say ‘Mister Bear would excuse me please while I go make a phone call?’”

An aggressive bear running amok in your backyard is only a minor inconvenience compared with aggressive liberals running amok in the government.

Remember something. (Every) living thing on this planet, be it man, animal, insect, or plant, has the right to protect and defend itself from harm or destruction. And that doesn’t come from some elected lying crook in congress, or some judge. It comes from God.

If the bear would have killed and eaten the man his estate would be charged for improperly feeding the black bear. All assets would be sold to satisfy the judgment. Liberal thought is the cancer of any society. And should be eliminated at all costs.

I am all for self defense and 2nd amendment rights. However this guys story seems different that what i heard. I heard he went back in his house for the shotgun. In that case , he shouldnt have shot the bear. If he had the gun and was approached by an aggressive bear, thats a good shoot. Otherwise he just executed a bear when he could have stayed in the house.

Chief Sluckis said the bear is believed to have been attracted to a 50-gallon drum of birdseed Mr. Ahlstrand had in his backyard. “He went back inside, retrieved a shotgun and decided to shoot the bear,” Chief Sluckis said.

A judge should decide if he had the gun on him or he retreated to the safety of his house to get it and then returned to the yard to shot it. Did he do something or not do something that could have prevented the bear encounter. That is up to an impartial judge.

I’m with Gman on this one. He admits he suspected there was a bear in the area, so he took his shotgun with him when filling the bird feeder. Uh-huh. I won’t side with liberals or game officers drunk with power, but I won’t side with this yahoo either.

@Gman — Uh, hello, whether he had to go get the gun or not is a non-issue. The bear was on his property and the owner felt threatened. The bear was stalking the man and his property with repeated visits. A man has the right to roam his own property and keep things, even birdseed, without fear of being stolen by trespassers. So,

According to your logic if a man repeatedly came on my property and took things and could because he was bigger than I and I knew as a woman of minimal fighting skills I had to sit and watch him take what he wanted out of fear of bodily harm, I could not go in the house and get a gun and say, “No further Mister.” and shoot when he came towards me and/or my things?

With your logic the owner should have just peed his pants or told the bear he was on his period. Man, you really think the guy should have just ran and hid and stayed inside his house and not have access to HIS property? Oh, I suppose he could have called some animal removal unit — but who would be left with the bill? Would he get billed for the keep of the bear wherever he was taken? Or is he gonna call the police and the bear would be arrested and put on trial? The established legal venue is to SHOOT the predator animal. C’mon, you’re jesting, right?

Back before I burned out on the lobotomy box known as teevee a nature show based in Alaska was on and two hikers were out in the boonies when a bear started to rush them. The guide pulled out a rifle and gunned the bear down. In the aftermath he was crying and said he didn’t want to do it but it was the bear or the humans. Moonbats would probably stand there and be mauled or be lunch.

Time to abolish the U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE as well as the DEPT of the INFERIOR its run by the deep ecologists and the nature freaks. They themselves need to get mualed by a bear thesse stupid buricrats

The bear was a large wild animal on his property. HIS property. End of story.

Every doofus here who says “Well, if he had only gone inside and called the…” has obviously never been within a mile of a real live bear outside of a zoo.

You kill the bear and eat it. Smoked bear jerky is amazing, and I’m not kidding.

The bigger point: progressives are going to make it so dangerous to shoot a gun (i.e. you’ll be tangled up in court for years, draining all your assets) that you will hesitate to shoot, thus putting your life in danger…from bears or bad guys or the government.

Taxachusetts liberal authoritarians have a special thing for bears, and have never gotten over resentment for Reagan’s bear in the woods commercial, with the bear signifying the former Soviet Union, which Massholes miss dearly.

Skyfall is correct though “progressives are going to make it so dangerous to shoot a gun (i.e. you’ll be tangled up in court for years, draining all your assets).”

Case in point – progressives are calling for mandatory gun liability insurance. It doesn’t take much brain power why they want it, and to imagine who they would want to be suing to collect it (as if criminals would carry it):

According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) associated with a progressive think tank, the legislation would frame gun violence as a “socioeconomic issue.”

“An insurance program for firearms would help shift the cost of gun violence onto [responsible] gun owners and away from all other taxpayers and victims [including Trayvons]. Right now, taxpayers — be it those who responsibly own gun, those who recklessly do [and act in self-defense], or those who have never even touched a firearm — take on the financial burden of guns: violent crimes are estimated to cost taxpayers $3.7 billion every year.

A part of the reason for that is because low-income people, who often lack even basic health insurance, are the ones being killed by guns [including minority-on-minority crime (which would not be insured) and a small amount of white self-defense (which would)]. Even the more affluent can suffocate under the piling debt of hospital bills, opting for bankruptcy [good luck getting any insurance out of the criminals who shot them]. And when victims of gun violence die, their families must then scrape up the cash to pay for a funeral, compensate for the lost income, and continue on with their lives.”

In other words – another federally mandated avenue for jackpot justice for the relatives of the Trayvon’s of the world to sue people acting in self-defense – as if acting in self-defense should not absolve one from paying anything. However, just the cost of defense of a frivilous suit by a Trayvon-type family against an individual would cause the insurance co. to pay up and cry uncle.http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2013/04/03/gun-insurance-an-economic-argument/

Consider Trayvon’s family recently “settled” a lawsuit against the Fla. against the homeowners association of the Florida subdivision where he was shot in self-defense. Estimates of the claim exceed $1 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, Trayvon Martin’s parents and his estate agreed to set aside their wrongful-death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses, the Sentinel reported.

The claim was based on the frivilous charge that the Homeowner’s association’s bylaws should have disallowed members from carrying weapons, according to the head of an HOA watchdog group quoted in the Orlando Sentinel.

The family is also seeking an undisclosed amount of money from the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, which offers victims as much as $30,000. The AP is reporting that the state attorney general’s office has [knuckled under and] deemed Fulton eligible for compensation benefits but no check has been issued to date.

Back when they were telling those campers in some national parks about avoiding bears telling them to wear little bells on their clothes and carry pepper spray but that was with Black & Brown bears however Grizzlies are attrackted to bells and are not bothered by pepper spray so you can telll grizzly scat becuase it smells like pepper and has little bells in it